On Tuesday, 5 March 2013 at 12:20:15 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 March 2013 at 10:41:36 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-03-05 09:48, Dicebot wrote:
I can find nothing on the topic of "separation" issue down
that link. In
fact I have never met a C/C++ programmer saying fact of
having a
separate headers is a problem, it was a loved feature if
anything.
Problem was the way it was designed, via pre-processor. D
fixes this by
introducing real symbolic imports and that is good, but
completely
irrelevant to the topic of separation of interface and
implementation.
We are all here :)
Well, that is why I am so surprised and asking for rationale
with better explanation than "it is obvious". I am rather
astonished by an overall negative reaction to a long awaited
(by me) Andrei proposal.
Clearly there's a misunderstanding going on somewhere. For
example when I say "code duplication" you say "There is close to
zero code duplication." but from my POV there clearly is code
duplication and it is indeed significant and completely
unnecessary. Also my understanding of what a module accomplishes
is a super set of what you think a module accomplishes, i.e., I
include that it solves the code duplication problem, you don't.
I agree that the current method of automated .di generation is a
failure, but I think it is a failure only because the programmer
has no control over specifying what goes into the .di file from
within the module source, and that the automated .di generation
and maintenance implementation is incomplete.
At this point in the discussion, I don't see a sound reason why
the automated .di generation cannot be fixed (proposed solutions
haven't even been discussed in any depth), and regressing back to
manual separation of code seems like a "quick fix" hack that
introduces a set of serious problems that cancel out the benefits
and probably make the situation worse.
You seem to support the idea of using manual .di generation and
maintenance, which implies to me that you think automated .di
generation cannot succeed, is this correct? If so, then I have to
ask why?
--rt
